killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.
|
what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.
you cannot logically be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.
you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.
if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.
|
The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.
With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.
|
well if its legal frame work that is the point, then marriage is not necassary. you can have the same benefits without gay marriage, so thats a moot point.
you cant ban something because historically it was exploitative to someone. the act it self is not exploitative, what peoples individuals action are, are of no significance. if it were then i could say, marriage should be banned completely because historically men have beat their wives.
why are you discriminating against groups that simply want to profess their love for each other, and have the legal benefits of marriage, and want to have it for principle, yet support it for a group that claim the same thing.
its quite hypocritical, and countradictory.
like i said, you cant come up with any reason for why you are against marriage equality other than its not necassary, and its bad. sounds a lot like the arguments against gay marriage, the arguments you laugh at.
|
